Content uploaded by Håkon Larsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Håkon Larsen on Jan 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND MUSEUMS
IN TRANSITION
In this anthology, top scholars researching libraries, archives, and museums
(LAM) issues in Scandinavia explore pressing issues for contemporary LAMs.
In recent decades, relations between libraries, archives, and museums have
changed rapidly: collections have been digitized; books, documents, and objects
have been mixed in new ways; and LAMs have picked up new tasks in response
to external changes. Libraries now host makerspaces and literary workshops,
archives ght climate change and support indigenous people, and museums are
used as instruments for economic growth and urban planning. At rst glance, the
described changes may appear as a divergent development, where the LAMs are
growing apart. However, this book demonstrates that the present transformation
of LAMs is primarily a convergent development.
Libraries, Archives, and Museums in Transition will be essential reading for stu-
dents, scholars, and practitioners seeking to get on top of the LAM literature or
the particularities of Scandinavian LAMs.
Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen is Associate Professor in the Department
of Communication, Section for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums
(GLAM) at the University of Copenhagen. His long-term research interest
involves library studies and cultural policy studies. Currently his research is
focusing on the relations between libraries, archives, and museums.
Kerstin Rydbeck is Professor of Information Studies at Uppsala University and
holds a doctoral degree in literature. Her research has focused on the sociology of
literature – particularly on readers, reading patterns and social reading activities,
and on the history of popular education and public libraries.
Håkon Larsen is Professor of Library and Information Science at Oslo
Metropolitan University. His main areas of interest are cultural sociology, cul-
tural policy studies, and library studies. He has published extensively on the topic
of cultural organizations and legitimacy. He holds a PhD in sociology.
LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES,
AND MUSEUMS IN
TRANSITION
Changes, Challenges,
and Convergence in a
Scandinavian Perspective
Edited by
Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen
Kerstin Rydbeck
Håkon Larsen
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen,
Kerstin Rydbeck and Håkon Larsen; individual chapters, the
contributors
The right of Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen, Kerstin Rydbeck and
Håkon Larsen to be identied as the authors of the editorial material,
and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any infor mation storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identication and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-032-03752-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-03364-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-18883-4 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003188834
Typeset in Bembo
by codeMantra
CONTENTS
List of gures and tables ix
List of contributors xi
Preface xiii
1 Introduction: libraries, archives, and museums in transition 1
Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen, Kerstin Rydbeck, and HåkonLarsen
PART I
Libraries, Archives, and Museums in Scandinavia:
History and Policy 15
2 Library history of the Scandinavian countries 17
Ragnar Audunson, Henrik Jochumsen, and Kerstin Rydbeck
3 The history of archives in Scandinavia 31
Samuel Edquist, Leiv Bjelland, and Lars-Erik Hansen
4 A concise history of museums in Scandinavia 44
Hans Dam Christensen, Brita Brenna, and Björn MagnussonStaaf
5 LAMs as objects of knowledge and cultural policy:
developing synergies 57
Ole Marius Hylland, Nanna Kann-Rasmussen, and
Andreas Vårheim
vi Contents
PART I I
LAMs and Collections 71
6 Do collections still constitute libraries, archives, and museums? 73
Samuel Edquist, Ragnar Audunson, and Isto Huvila
7 Curating collections in LAMs 87
Terje Colbjørnsen, Brita Brenna, and Samuel Edquist
8 Knowledge organization in LAMs 100
Ulrika Kjellman, Hans Dam Christensen, and
Johanna Rivano Eckerdal
PART III
Challenges for LAMs in the 21st Century 115
9 The impact of digitalization on LAMs 117
Bjarki Valtysson, Ulrika Kjellman, and Ragnar Audunson
10 Digital communication in LAMs 130
Henriette Roued-Cunlie, Bjarki Valtysson, and
Terje Colbjørnsen
11 Learning, literacy, and education in LAMs 144
Johanna Rivano Eckerdal, Henriette Roued-Cunlie, and
Isto Huvila
12 LAMs and the participatory turn 158
Isto Huvila, Jamie Johnston, and Henriette Roued-Cunlie
13 Contemporary Scandinavian LAMs and legitimacy 173
Håkon Larsen, Nanna Kann-Rasmussen, and
Johanna Rivano Eckerdal
14 LAMs and community: deepening connections 187
Jamie Johnston, Henrik Jochumsen, and Samuel Edquist
15 LAMs as activists? Dilemmas between neutrality and
taking a stand 201
Nanna Kann-Rasmussen, Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen, and
Roger Blomgren
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
12.1 Types of participation based on degree of power sharing and
direct or indirect benets to communities 161
14.1 LAM inner community rings 195
16.1 The four components of sustainability 223
Tables
12.1 Participation matrix with questions for reecting on
participatory practices and their premises 168
13.1 Audience for public performances of legitimacy 174
CONTRIBUTORS
Ragnar Audunson is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Archivistics,
Library and Information Science at Oslo Metropolitan University.
Leiv Bjellandis Assistant Professor in the Department of Archivistics, Library
and Information Science at Oslo Metropolitan University.
Roger Blomgrenis Professor in the Swedish School of Library and Information
Science at the University of Borås.
Brita Brennais Professor in the Department of Culture Studies and Oriental
Languages at the University of Oslo.
Hans Dam Christensen is Professor in the Section of Galleries, Libraries,
Archives and Museums (GLAM), Department of Communication, University
of Copenhagen.
Terje Colbjørnsen is Associate Professor in the Department of Archivistics,
Library and Information Science at Oslo Metropolitan University.
Johanna Rivano Eckerdal is Associate Professor in the Section of Archives,
Libraries, Museums and Digital Cultures, Department of Arts and Cultural
Sciences, Lund University.
Samuel Edquist is Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social
Sciences at Mid Sweden University.
Lars-Erik Hansen is Associate Professor in the Department of Archivistics,
Library and Information Science at Oslo Metropolitan University.
xii Contributors
Isto Huvilais Professor in the Department of ALM at Uppsala University.
Ole Marius Hyllandis Research Professor at Telemark Research Institute.
Henrik Jochumsenis Associate Professor in the Section of Galleries, Libraries,
Archives and Museums (GLAM), Department of Communication, University of
Copenhagen.
Jamie Johnston is Associate Professor in the Department of Archivistics,
Library and Information Science at Oslo Metropolitan University.
Nanna Kann-Rasmussen is Associate Professor in the Section of Galleries,
Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM), Department of Communication,
University of Copenhagen.
Ulrika Kjellmanis Associate Professor in the Department of ALM at Uppsala
Univer sity.
Håkon Larsen is Professor in the Department of Archivistics, Library and
Information Science at Oslo Metropolitan University.
Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen is Associate Professor in the Section
of Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM), Department of
Communication, University of Copenhagen.
Henriette Roued-Cunliffeis Associate Professor in the Section of Galleries,
Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM), Department of Communication,
University of Copenhagen.
Kerstin Rydbeckis Professor in the Department of ALM at Uppsala University.
Björn Magnusson Staaf is Associate Professor in the Section of Archives,
Libraries, Museums and Digital Cultures, Department of Arts and Cultural
Sciences, Lund University.
Bjarki Valtyssonis Associate Professor in the Department of Arts and Cultural
Studies at the University of Copenhagen.
Andreas Vårheimis Professor in the Department of Language and Culture at
UiT – The Arctic University of Norway.
PREFACE
During the last decades, common research and practice elds for libraries,
archives, and museums (LAMs) have emerged. In the Scandinavian countries
of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the education of LAM professionals is being
conducted in cross-sectoral LAM departments at several universities, and some-
times even in joint LAM programs. With this anthology, we have gathered top
scholars researching LAM issues in Scandinavia, where each contributes their
expertise in discussing pressing issues for contemporary LAMs. The book will
be essential reading for advanced undergraduate and graduate students in LAM-
related programs, as well as scholars seeking to get on top of the LAM literature
or the particularities of Scandinavian LAMs.
The anthology springs out of a workshop grant in 2018 from The Joint
Committee for Nordic Research Councils in the Humanities and Social Sciences
(NOS-HS), which funded the project Libraries, Archives, and Museums: Changes,
Challenges, and Collaboration (LAMC3). One of the main goals of the project
was to establish collaboration between Scandinavian researchers across the LAM
elds. The point of departure for the collaboration was three workshops in
Copenhagen, Uppsala, and Oslo. At the second workshop in Uppsala, the idea
of an anthology was discussed and developed. Several participants pointed to the
need for an anthology for Scandinavian graduate and advanced undergraduate
students covering pressing issues for LAMs. At the third workshop in Oslo, we
were discussing chapter drafts for this book.
Preceding the LAMC3 project, many of the authors of this anthology
participated in the research project The ALM-eld, Digitalization, and the Public
Sphere (ALMPUB), funded by the Norwegian Research Council. Through the
ALMPUB and LAMC3 projects a network of LAM scholars has been established.
Although the anthology is the end-product of this particular collaboration, many
of the authors have ongoing collaborations on studies of LAM issues within and
xiv Preface
beyond Scandinavia. The book is centered around Scandinavian LAMs, but the
issues discussed are by no means particular to Scandinavia. As such, the book
will also be of interest for scholars and students studying LAM issues around the
globe.
Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen
Kerstin Rydbeck
Håkon Larsen
DOI: 10.4324/9781003188834-1
Libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs) have a long, interrelated history and,
since the turn of the century, growing relations between LAMs have become
more apparent. Internationally, the number of collaborative projects and partner-
ships has increased and the incidence of libraries, archives, or museums sharing
premises or even merging has grown. Many of the collaborations follow trends
in digitalization, which can be seen in the development of shared digital cultural
heritage platforms and content sharing. Accordingly, digital convergence among
LAMs is a growing eld of research. The number of cross-sectoral textbooks and
other publications is slowly increasing and collaborations between sector- specic
educational environments are discussed in tertiary education. Collectively, this
indicates that a common LAM perspective is in the process of becoming an
established phenomenon (Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Hjørland 2021).
Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) oers a fruitful region for
LAM research for several reasons. First, Scandinavian LAM institutions are rela-
tively well funded and developed compared to the situation in other parts of the
world. Second, LAMs in Scandinavia are governed by a cultural policy rooted
in the welfare states’ values of enlightenment, community building, and partici-
patory democracy. Third, some of the tertiary education of the respective LAM
professionals in Scandinavia is in cross-sectoral departments, or so-called “LAM
departments.” In Sweden and Denmark, some departments oer programs and
specializations in library and information science, archival science, and museum
studies, and in Norway there are programs in library and information science
and archival science in joint departments. In this book, we will address all three
sectors. The book encompasses a common LAM perspective and addresses issues
related to LAM institutions’ environment, collections, and challenges.
1
INTRODUCTION
Libraries, archives, and museums in transition
Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen, Kerstin Rydbeck, and
HåkonLarsen
2 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
Even though educational convergence may appear most apparent in
Scandinavia, institutional mergers between LAMs are widespread in Australia
(Robinson 2019) and research on digital convergence has been initiated in North
America (Marty 2014). The described challenges and the transition of LAMs are
thus an international trend. Although we adopt a Scandinavian perspective in
this book, we deal with tendencies and issues discussed internationally within
library and information science, archival science, and museum studies.
Relations between LAMs
The borders between libraries, archives, and museums have always been complex
and ever-changing. On the one hand, LAMs are cognate elds with dierent
tasks. Basic denitions of LAMs generally highlight collections: Libraries have
books, archives have documents, and museums have artifacts. Therefore, it
makes sense to talk about librarians working at libraries, archivists working at
archives, and curators working at museums. On the other hand, the borders
between LAMs are not as clear and well dened as they may initially appear.
The denitions of libraries, archives, and museums have changed over time and
the division of collections between books, documents, and artifacts has become
increasingly blurred. National libraries frequently exhibit artifacts and normally
own special collections of documents. Archives display artifacts and some even
maintain libraries. Museums often have archives and sometimes also libraries.
Noticeable changes in the relations between LAMs have taken place in recent
decades. As collections have been digitized, books, documents, and objects
have been mixed in new ways. The respective institutions have all responded
to external pressures, such as increased demands for demonstrating relevance.
Libraries host makerspaces and literary workshops, archives ght climate change
and support the culture and rights of indigenous peoples, and museums are
used as instruments for economic growth and urban planning. At rst glance,
these changes may appear to be divergent developments. However, the observed
changes in LAMs should mainly be seen as a convergence for several reasons that
are discussed below.
A common historical ancestry
The birth of libraries is normally dated back to Mesopotamia 2500 BC. Those
early libraries consisted of clay tablets, some of them with literary text but more
often with dierent types of legal and nancial contracts, administrative texts,
and letters – or what we today should dene as archives of documents (Pedersén
2005). The Library of Alexandria is another frequently used example showing the
blurred borders between LAMs. Here originals or copies of much of the known
text in the world were stored in the form of papyrus rolls, a huge archive in the
present understanding. It also had cultural artifacts and even a zoological garden.
The Library of Alexandria was a place for researchers and therefore it was called
Introduction: Libraries, archives, and museums in transition 3
the “Mouseion,” or the “Temple of the Muses.” Mouseion is the etymological
precursor to the museum as we know it today (Dilevko and Gottlieb 2003;
Marcum 2014). Another precursor to the museum was the “ cabinet of curiosities,”
which could contain any notable object. It could be artwork, books, natural
items, etc. For the premodern collector there was no distinct border between
objects, documents, and books. The collectors were generally royalty, scientists,
or wealthy individuals, and many of their collections became the foundation for
a modern collecting institution. One of the most energetic collectors was the
Irish physician Hans Sloane. He collected more than 71,000 items, and after his
death in 1753, his collection became an important part of the British Museum,
with some of it being channeled later into the Natural History Museum and the
British Library, as they grew out of the British Museum. The British Museum
served as the national library in Great Britain until the British Library was estab-
lished in 1973 (Delbourgo 2017; Høiback 2020, 51–55). Theoverlapping borders
between libraries, archives, and museums have a long history.
Intersecting cultural policy aims
LAMs have been described as “memory institutions” collecting cultural heritage
in dierent ways (Dempsey 1999). In a Scandinavian context, many LAMs are
subsumed under the culture sector. Therefore, LAMs are part of the national
cultural policy serving certain shared political purposes such as supporting
enlightenment and national identity (Brown and Davis-Brown 1998; Vestheim
1997). Furthermore, LAMs form an important part of the infrastructure of the
public sphere, through supporting access to knowledge, freedom of speech, and
deliberative activities (Audunson et al. 2019; Larsen 2018). Finally, together with
other cultural institutions that receive public funds, LAMs are inuenced by
dominant trends in cultural policy. Mangset et al. (2008) highlight some of these
and point to the following as the two most important: (1) Scandinavian cultural
policy tries to promote equal access to culture and to reduce structurally based
inequalities in cultural life; (2) since the 1970s, Scandinavian cultural policies
have taken a distinct sociocultural turn where diversity and broadening of the
concept of culture have been at the forefront of cultural policy. With this in
mind, it is not surprising that a Swedish survey has documented only small vari-
ations between professionals’ visions in LAMs (Huvila 2014).
From collection-driven towards user-driven
“From collection to connection” has been a buzzword in the public library eld
for two decades. The slogan indicates that a library is more than a collection. It is
not only a quiet place with public access to published documents, it should also
be a vibrant and social place supporting the aims of public libraries in new ways
such as makerspaces or reading groups ( Jochumsen, Hvenegaard Rasmussen,
and Skot-Hansen 2012). Likewise, museums have been transformed from
4 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
being about something to being for somebody (Weil 1999). Just like libraries,
museums have moved from being collection-driven towards a more user-driven
approach (Anderson 2012). The same tendency can be identied among archives.
According to Cook (2013), the archivist has been transformed over the past 150
years from passive curator to community facilitator. Thus, on a general level,
LAMs have gone through the same transformation. The collections are still an
important part of LAMs, but the users have been given greater priority over the
last 50 years. This increased user orientation has been put into practice in dier-
ent ways, such as considering diversity, focusing on user surveys, or co-creating
content with users.
Proximity in government agencies
As mentioned above, the relations between LAMs are ever-changing, but this
is not synonymous with an increasing convergent development. During the
twentieth century, the institutionalization and professionalization of libraries,
archives, and museums expanded with the result that borders between the three
elds became sharper (Given and Mctavish 2010; Tanackovic and Badurina
2009). However, LAMs have been placed together in dierent government agen-
cies. In Chile, that happened back in 1929, when the Dirección de Bibliotecas,
Archivos y Museos was created. In the US, the Institute of Museum and Library
Services was formed in 1996. It is a federal agency with the mission that muse-
ums and libraries work together in order to transform the lives of individuals and
communities (Pastore 2009). Library and Archives Canada, formed in 2004, is a
merger of the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada
(Bak and Armstrong 2008). Previously, Norway had the Norwegian Archive,
Library and Museum Authority and England the Council for Museums, Archives
and Libraries. They have both closed down now, although not due to a lack
of relevance: The English LAM authority was abolished due to public budget
cutbacks (Hooper-Greenhill 2004), and the Norwegian closure was the result of
a power struggle between the National Library and the LAM authority (Hylland
2019; Skare, Stokstad, and Vårheim 2019).
Collaboration between LAMs
The main argument for establishing LAM authorities was the new digital
possibilities in the wake of the Internet. According to Marty (2014), Rayward’s
(1998) book chapter “Electronic Information and the Functional Integration of
Libraries, Museums, and Archives” was the starting point for a new research
agenda on the topic of digital convergence. Rayward’s point of departure was
that the separation of books, documents, and objects in libraries, archives,
and museums did not make sense in a digital environment. Since the new
millennium, there have been many examples of digital convergence from small
collaborations between local institutions to the supranational level. One example
Introduction: Libraries, archives, and museums in transition 5
of the latter is Europeana, the European Union’s digital platform for cultural
heritage, to which more than 3,000 institutions across Europe have contributed.
These institutions range from major international names like the Rijksmuseum
in Amsterdam, the British Library, and the Louvre to regional archives and local
museums from every member state (Valtysson 2012). However, digitalization
is not the only driver for collaboration. According to Kann-Rasmussen (2019),
the collaboration between cultural institutions itself is a quality in the present
society. In this, the ability to create connections between elds is of considerable
value. The most valuable links are those that connect dierent elds or cross
boundaries. Hvenegaard Rasmussen (2019) argues that this is exactly what digital
convergence is all about: Collaboration between dierent elds.
Cultural imperatives and shared professional practices
Working in a library, archive, or museum is based on dierent professional
practices. Furthermore, being employed in a metropolitan art museum or a small
museum of local history is not the same thing. However, LAMs, along with
other cultural institutions, have been inuenced by several trends or imperatives
over the past few decades. An imperative is an authoritative command or call for
action that is perceived as being universal and self-explanatory, and those who
criticize the basic idea of the imperative runs the risk of being perceived as irre-
sponsible, foolish, or morally corrupted (Henningsen and Larsen 2020, 53). We
have already touched upon some imperatives in the culture sector, such as user
orientation, collaboration, and digitalization. In addition, new public manage-
ment, the experience economy, and participation can be viewed as imperatives.
The content of the various imperatives is not so important in this context, as the
crucial aspect of the highlighted imperatives is their push towards a convergent
professional practice in LAMs. Compared to the twentieth century, it is more
common in the twenty-rst century for all kinds of LAM professionals to carry
out user surveys, to work in a project-oriented manner, to design experiences, to
digitize collections, to use social media for marketing, and to co-create content
with the users.
The historical roots of LAMs
A basic assumption in this book is that institutions such as libraries, archives,
and museums do not develop in a vacuum. On the contrary, the development of
an institution is an interplay between internal and external forces. An internal
driver for change could be power struggles between professionals within a eld,
while external forces could be changes in legal requirements, a certain zeit-
geist or social, cultural, or technological changes pushing for adaptation within
organizations. In this section, we will discuss four key forces of social change
that have inuenced the emergence and development of libraries, archives, and
museums, as well as the rest of society. These are enlightenment, nation state,
6 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
modernity, and democracy. In reality, these are inextricably linked with each
other. For pedagogical reasons, we have nevertheless divided these into sepa-
rate sections in our discussion on drivers for the formation of modern libraries,
archives, and museums.
Enlightenment
In European history, the period between the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries is often entitled the “Age of Enlightenment.” More specically, it was
an intellectual movement driven by the bourgeoisie arguing for new ideas such
as liberty, progress, constitutional government, and separation of the Church and
state. The historical background for the Age of Enlightenment was the estab-
lished privileges for the Church, the king, and aristocracy (Zarovski 2010). For
adherents of enlightenment, absolute monarchy and religious power should be
replaced by science and reason. The destiny for each person should be taken from
God and king and handed over to the individual. If the individual is to have a fair
chance of proving successful in life, enlightenment is an important precondition.
One of the most inuential enlightenment thinkers was the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant, who in 1784 replied to the question “What is enlightenment?”
in a Berlin journal:
Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage
is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance.
This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but
in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s
guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) “Have the courage to use your
own understanding” is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
(Kant 1996, 58)
Courage and reason are indispensable ingredients for Kant if the individual is to
be enlightened. However, without access to knowledge, the enlightenment of
the people would fail. Thus, LAMs were vital sources of knowledge. From the
middle of the seventeenth century and onwards, highbrow art was increasingly
perceived as an expression of the highest condition of mankind and granting
public access to art museums was seen to a greater extent as a duty of the state
(Duncan and Wallach 1980). Furthermore, other kinds of museums were also
imposed a didactic burden as compared to earlier collections that were more
concerned about creating surprise or provoking wonder (Bennett 1995, 2). Free
public access to knowledge is the foundation for the public library movement,
which originated in the US and UK, and later spread to the Scandinavian coun-
tries (Frisvold 2015; Torstensson 1993). According to Emerek (2001), the for-
mation of Danish public libraries was based on Anglo-American inspiration
regarding rational operation and organization, and the Age of Enlightenment
when it comes to the value base for establishing public libraries. Finally, the Age
Introduction: Libraries, archives, and museums in transition 7
of Enlightenment plays an important role in public access to archives. Inthe wake
of the French Revolution, a legal act from 1794 underlined for the rst time the
citizens’ right to access public archives in France. In the time that followed, this
right to civic access to archives was increasingly recognized in other parts of
Europe (Duchein 1992).
Nation state
Since the eighteenth century, the nation state has gradually replaced kingdoms,
empires, and city states as the dominant way of ruling over geographic territo-
ries. A nation state is a state in which the great majority identify themselves as
a nation. Ideally, the cultural boundaries match up with political boundaries in
a nation state. In reality, all nation states consist of people with dierent ethnic
and cultural backgrounds. Thus, nation building has been an ongoing task for
maintaining the legitimacy of a nation. LAM institutions have played a conspic-
uous role in nation building. According to Berger (2013), national archives have
supported the construction of national master narratives in Europe. A major
task assigned to historians was to legitimate the history of the nation state, and
archives adopted an important position in nation building. For example, after
Norway achieved independence from Denmark in 1814, the Norwegian national
archive was established in 1817. The national master narratives are also embedded
in the museums’ chronological exhibitions, which became more widespread in
the wake of the Enlightenment. After the French Revolution, the Louvre was
reorganized in a chronological way that allowed visitors to decode the nation
states’ history of development. Roughly speaking, the chronological national
master narrative begins in an “oppressed” or “uncivilized” past and ends with
an “independent” and “civilized” present nation state (Mordhorst and Wagner
Nielsen 1997). Furthermore, throughout Europe, the values of national cohe-
sion were manifested in the architecture of the national archives, libraries, and
museums, all situated in the most prestigious parts of the nations – the capitals
(Aronsson 2015). Sometimes, the alliance between the nation state and cultural
heritage was expressed in the national institutions’ ornamentation. One example
is the three busts outside the German national library. Here are Gutenberg and
Goethe located together with Bismarck, who masterminded the unication of
Germany and served as its rst chancellor. Finally, according to Duncan and
Wallach (1980), the Louvre changed from celebrating the glory of the king to
becoming a symbol of France’s superiority as a nation state.
In summary, the Louvre embodies the state and the ideology of the state. It
presents the state not directly but, as it were, disguised in the spiritual forms of
artistic genius. Artistic genius attests to the state’s highest value – individualism
and nationalism. It demonstrates the nation’s destiny and the state’s benevolence
(Duncan and Wallach 1980, 463).
The citation above refers to an embedded conict in modern LAMs, namely
the tension between individualism and nationalism. On the one hand, LAMs
8 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
pay tribute to such values as accountability and neutrality, growing out of the
Enlightenment and making up important prerequisites for individual formation
of opinion. On the other hand, LAMs, and especially the big national institutions,
are potentially an integrated part of the value-based national master narratives.
Modernity
Seen from a sociological perspective, enlightenment and the formation of nation
states are part of the modernization of society: The transformation from a feu-
dal or premodern society to a modern society (Giddens 1990). One of the most
predominate characteristics of modernity is social change and the awareness of
change as a condition for living in a modern world. According to Bennett (1995,
10), museums in the late nineteenth century were referred to as “machines for
progress” because many (chronological) exhibitions allowed visitors to follow a
path of evolutionary development that led from simple to more complex forms
of living. Furthermore, the systematic and institutionalized way of collecting
is modern. For the French philosopher Michel Foucault, LAM institutions are
emblematic of modernity:
The idea of accumulating everything, of establishing a sort of general
archive, the will to enclose in one place all times, all epochs, all forms, all
tastes, the idea of constituting a place of all times that is itself outside of
time and inaccessible to its ravages, the project of organizing in this way a
sort of perpetual and indenite accumulation of time in an immobile place,
this whole idea belongs to our modernity.
(Foucault 1986, 26)
In addition to change, other signicant characteristics of modernity are ration-
ality and dierentiation of society into dierent relatively independent expert
systems. The formation of modern libraries, archives, and museums is an obvious
example of such relatively independent expert systems. Consequently, moder-
nity has been a driver for a divergent development of libraries, archives, and
museums, whereas a feature of a postmodern society is de-dierentiation (Smith
2001, 225), which is also manifest in the move towards convergence in LAMs.
As mentioned above, Hans Sloane’s huge collection of many dierent items got
divided into a library, an archive, and a museum. In each of these institutions,
experts managed the collections. Many libraries used Dewey’s universal decimal
classication system, and according to Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Jochumsen
(2007), the use of the universal decimal classication is more than a functional
tool for storing and retrieval, it is a symbol of modern society’s endeavors toward
dierentiation and putting everything in its rightful place. The same endeav-
ors can easily be identied in the modern museum because science became the
guiding light for knowledge organization. Museums were divided into dierent
types of museums such as art museums and botanical museums. In art museums,
Introduction: Libraries, archives, and museums in transition 9
works of art were arranged chronologically into periods dened by art history,
while botanical specimens were arranged taxonomically according to Linnaean
classication (Roppola 2012, 14–16). In the introduction to Archives and the Public
Good: Accountability and Records in the Modern Society, Cox and Wallace (2002) dis-
cuss the signicant roles that records play in accountability. For instance, when
our personal data are records in archives or records are used as evidence in court
proceedings, “accountability” is an unavoidable term. In the same way, account-
ability is vital to all modern LAM institutions because the legitimacy of these
institutions is related to accountability.
Democracy
The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire advocated freedom of speech
and freedom of religion but did not believe in democracy – he preferred an
enlightened absolute monarch. However, it is nearly impossible to imagine the
Scandinavian democracies without the Age of Enlightenment. In a democracy, it
is not only the monarch who needs to be enlightened; all citizens need enlight-
enment to participate in democracy. The Danish public library pioneer Andreas
Schack Steenberg clearly points that out:
It is important to consider the position that “common man” holds today
compared with his position only a hundred years ago. The right to vote,
eligibility, and the impact on the corporate world through unions have
given the masses a responsibility as never before. The people’s horizon is
broadened and thereby their need for knowledge and critical thinking. The
huge power average people have obtained today underlines the increasing
need for “society to enlighten its master.”
(Steenberg 1900, 14)
It is not surprising that Steenberg recommends that libraries should solve the
task of enlightening the entire population. Retrospectively, public libraries
have ensured free access to knowledge in the Scandinavian countries. However,
throughout the twentieth century, there were extensive disagreements about the
content within the library eld. Steenberg argued for highbrow literature and
nonction as dened by experts in the library eld, while other actors within
the eld preferred literature in accordance with the literary preferences of the
“common man.” National cultural policies in the Scandinavian countries reect
this conict, under the labels of “democratization of culture” and “cultural
democracy” (Mangset et al. 2008). Democratization of culture was the point of
departure for national cultural policies in the postwar era. In this strategy, the
culture sector supports democracy by giving access to highbrow art and culture
as a part of the publicly funded enlightenment. As a supplement or alternative to
the democratization of culture, cultural democracy gained speed in the 1970s. It
is a strategy supporting democracy by ensuring that cultural diversity ourishes,
10 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
among other things by supporting amateur cultural activities. According to this
strategy, all kinds of cultural preferences should be present in publicly funded
cultural life. Today, freedom of speech is an important value in cultural policy.
These strategies have also inuenced LAM institutions. Supporting democracy
is perceived as an important task for LAMs, but disagreement will potentially
occur when the question of how to best support democracy is raised.
The structure of the book
Finally, in this chapter, we will present the main themes of the book: The his-
tory and policy of libraries, archives, and museums in Scandinavia; LAMs and
their collections; and challenges for LAMs in the twenty-rst century. Part I
consists of four chapters, dealing with the development of libraries, archives,
museums, and cultural policy in a Scandinavian context. All chapters have a
societal perspective, focusing on how enlightenment, nation building, moder-
nity, and democracy have shaped the LAMs. Furthermore, all the chapters
pinpoint dierent types of libraries, archives, and museums. The rst three
chapters end their discussions at the turn of the millennium. The last chap-
ter in this section describes the development of cultural policies in Denmark,
Norway, and Sweden, mainly focusing on the period from the 1960s to the
present. As already mentioned in the paragraph on democracy, the guiding light
for Scandinavian cultural policy is the access to information and art (democ-
ratization of culture) and the support of diverse cultural expressions (cultural
democracy).
Collection is the point of departure for the second theme of the book. It is a
common feature of all kinds of LAMs that they collect, maintain, and develop
their collections. Part II consists of three chapters concentrating on dierent
aspects of LAM collections. In the rst chapter, the authors describe and discuss
the collection status for LAMs. If the above-mentioned slogan “From collection
to connection” is a reality, are LAMs still constituted by their collections? The
authors of the next chapter focus on the selection, maintenance, and exhibition
of collections. Despite curation primarily being connected to museums, the con-
cept is in this chapter used for discussing selection, maintenance, and exhibition
in all kinds of LAMs – how has the selection of content changed over time? All
collections entail a need for knowledge organization, which is the topic for the
last chapter in this part of the book. The aim of the chapter is to describe and
discuss dierences and similarities between knowledge organization in libraries,
archives, and museums.
The last theme of the book is eight common challenges for LAMs. Part
III starts with two chapters discussing the impact of digitalization on LAMs.
The rst chapter is dedicated to the challenges that digitalization represents for
LAMs, their professionals, and users. The next chapter is focusing on the use of
digital communication in LAMs. The main aim of the chapter is to explore the
current state of digital communication across and between LAMs. The third
Introduction: Libraries, archives, and museums in transition 11
chapter in the section deals with literacy and the education of LAM users. In
the chapter, the authors present how LAMs have shifted from being enablers of
mainly informal learning to increasingly becoming places for formal learning as
well. The fourth common challenge is participation. The entire cultural eld is
witnessing a “participatory turn,” and among LAMs, “participation” has been
the most prominent buzzword for more than a decade. The authors of the chapter
describe and discuss dierent types of participation, including crowdsourcing,
co-creation, and the facilitation of shared experiences in terms of culture and art.
The fth challenge is the increased pressure to demonstrate the worth of one’s
work to a broad public, and the need for managers of culture organizations to
engage in continuous legitimation work. This chapter contains discussions on a
range of issues related to ongoing legitimation work in Scandinavian LAMs. Due
to the increased need for legitimation, LAMs need to develop and strengthen
ties to their local communities. In the sixth chapter, authors describe and discuss
how the institutions are anchoring themselves in their communities and con-
necting with various user groups. Special attention is paid to services to immi-
grants, the use of volunteers, and collaboration with local partners. Traditionally,
LAMs have been perceived as neutral institutions, but this alleged neutrality has
been questioned over the past two decades, and dierent kinds of activism have
emerged. This growing LAM activism is the topic for the seventh chapter in
this part of the book. In the last chapter, the authors address how LAMs support
some of the challenges that the Scandinavian societies face in the twenty-rst
century. The point of departure is the United Nations Member States Agenda for
Sustainable Development Goals, of which the chapter discusses two of the goals,
as related to LAMs: First, how LAMs are advancing environmental responsibil-
ity; second, how they promote social equity related to diversity and equality.
The anthology is completed with a concluding chapter, where the described
dierences and similarities between libraries, archives, and museums are discussed
and future common challenges are outlined.
References
Anderson, Gail. 2012. Reinventing the Museum, the Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm
Shift. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Aronsson, Peter. 2015. “National Museums as Cultural Constitutions.” In National
Museums and Nation-Building in Europe 1750 –2010: Mobilization and Legitimacy,
Continuity and Change, edited by Peter Aronsson and Gabriella Elgenius, 167–199.
London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315737133.
Audunson, Ragnar, Svanhild Aabø, Roger Blomgren, Hans-Christoph Hobohm,
Henrik Jochumsen, Mahmood Khosrowjerdi, Rudolf Mumenthaler et al. 2019.
“Public Libraries as Public Sphere Institutions: A Comparative Study of Perceptions
of the Public Library’s Role in Six European Countries.” Journal of Documentation 75,
no. 6: 1396–1415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0015.
Bak, Greg and Pam Armstrong. 2008. “Points of Convergence: Seamless Long-Term
Access to Digital Publications and Archival Records at Library and Archives Canada.”
Archival Science 8, no. 4: 279–293.
12 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
Bennett, Tony 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge.
Berger, Stefan. 2013. “The Role of National Archives in Constructing National Master
Narratives in Europe.” Archival Science 13, no. 1: 1–22.
Brown, Richard Harvey and Beth Davis-Brown. 1998. “The Making of Memory:
The Politics of Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Construction of National
Consciousness.” History of the Human Sciences 11, no. 4: 17–32.
Cook, Terry. 2013. “Evidence, Memor y, Identity, and Community: Four Shifting
Archival Paradigms.” Archival Science 13, no. 2: 95–120.
Cox, Richard J. and David A. Wallace. 2002. “Introduction.” In Archives and the Public
Good: Accountability and Records in Modern Society, edited by Richard J. Cox and David
A. Wallace, 1–18. Westport: Quorum Book.
Delbourgo, James. 2017. Collecting the World: The Life and Curiosity of Hans Sloane. London:
Penguin UK.
Dempsey, Lorcan. 1999. “Scientic, Industrial, and Cultural Heritage: A Shared
Approach.” Ariadne, Issue 22.
Dilevko, Juris and Lisa Gottlieb. 2003. “Resurrecting a Neglected Idea: The
Reintroduction of Library-Museum Hybrids.” The Library Quarterly 73, no. 2:
160 –198.
Duchein, Michel. (1992) “The History of European Archives and the Development of the
Archival Profession in Europe.” The American Archivist 55, no. 1: 14–25.
Duncan, Carol and Alan Wallach. 1980. “The Universal Survey Museum.” Art History
3, no. 4: 448–469.
Emerek, Leif. 2001. “At skrive bibliotekshistorie: Om grundlæggelsen af det moderne
folkebibliotek i Danmark”. In Det siviliserte informasjonssamfunn: Folkebibliotekenes rolle
ved inngangen til en digital tid, edited by Ragnar Audunson and Niels Windfeld Lund,
88–118. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Foucault, Michel. 1986. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16, no. 1: 22–27.
Frisvold, Øyvind. 2015. “Da ‘biblioteksrevolusjonen’ kom til Norge.” In Samle, formi-
dle, dele. 75 år med bibliotekarutdanning, edited by Ragnar Audunson, 73–89. Oslo:
ABM-media.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Sta nford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Given, Lisa M. and Lianne McTavish. 2010. “What’s Old Is New Again: The
Reconvergence of Libraries, Archives, and Museums in the Digital Age.” The Library
Quarterly 80, no. 1: 7–32.
Henningsen, Er ik and Håkon Larsen. 2020. “The Digita lization Imperative: Sacral ization
of Technology in LAM Policies.” In Libraries, Archives and Museums as Democratic Spaces
in a Digital Age, edited by Ragna r Audunson, Herbjørn Andersen, Cici lie Fagerl id, Erik
Henningsen, Hans-Christoph Hobohm, Henrik Jochumsen, Håkon Larsen and Tonje
Vold, 53–72. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110636628-003.
Høiback, Harald. 2020. Kunnskap og begeistring. En innføring i museenes historie, hensikt og
virkemåte. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 2004. “Measuring Learning Outcomes in Museums, Archives
and Libraries: The Learning Impact Research Project (LIRP).” International Journal of
Heritage Studies 10, no. 2: 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250410001692877.
Huvila, Isto. 2014. “Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Contemporary Society:
Perspectives of the Professionals.” In IConference 2014 Proceedings, 45–64. https://doi.
org/10.9776/14032.
Introduction: Libraries, archives, and museums in transition 13
Hvenega ard Rasmu ssen, Casper. 2 019. “Is Digita lizat ion the Only Dr iver of Convergence?
Theorizing Relations Between Libraries, Archives, and Museums.” Journal of
Documentation 75, no. 6: 1258–1273. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0025.
Hvenegaard Rasmussen, Casper and Birger Hjørland. 2021. “Libraries, Archives and
Museums (LAM): Conceptual Issues with Focus on their Convergence.” Encyclopedia
of Knowledge Organization.
Hvenega ard Rasmu ssen, Caspe r and Henri k Jochumsen. 2 007. “Proble ms and Possibi lities:
The Public Library in the Borderline between Modernity and Late Modernity.” The
Library Quarterly 77, no. 1: 45–59.
Hylland, Ole Marius. 2019. “ABM-utviklings vekst og fall.” Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift
22, no. 2: 257–276. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2000-8325/-2019-02-04.
Jochumsen, Henrik, Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Dorte Skot-Hansen. 2012.
“The Four Spaces: A New Model for the Public Library.” New Library World 113, no.
11/12: 586–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801211282948.
Kann-Rasmussen, Nanna. (2019). “The Collaborating Cultural Organization:
Legitimation through Partnerships.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
49, no. 5: 307–323.
Kant, Immanuel. (1996). “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” In What
Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions, edited by
J.Schmidt, 58–64. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Larsen, Håkon. 2018. “Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Nordic Model of the
Public Sphere.” Journal of Documentation 74, no. 1: 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JD-12-2016-0148.
Mangset, Per, Anita Kangas, Dorte Skot-Hansen and Geir Vestheim. 2008. “Nordic
Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 14, no. 1: 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10286630701856435.
Marcum, Deanna. 2014. “Archives, Libraries, Museums: Coming Back Together?”
Information & Culture: A Journal of History 49, no. 1: 74–89.
Marty, Paul F. 2014. “Digital Convergence and the Information Profession in Cultural
Heritage Organizations: Reconciling Internal and External Demands.” Library Trends
62, no. 3: 613–627.
Mordhorst, Camilla and Kitte Wagner Nielsen. 1997. “Formens semantik: En teori om
den kulturhistoriske udstilling.” Nordisk Museologi, no. 1: 3–18.
Pastore, Erica. 2009. The Future of Museums and Libraries: A Discussion Guide. Washington,
DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Pedersén, Olof. 2005. “De äldsta biblioteken – lertavlor med kilskriftstext.” Tvärsnitt
3:2–6.
Rayward, W. Boyd. 1998. “Electronic Information and the Functional Integration
of Libraries, Museums, and Archives.” In History and Electronic Artefacts, edited by
E.Higgs, 207–226. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Robinson, Helena. 2019. Interpreting Objects in the Hybrid Museum: Convergence, Collections
and Cultural Policy. London: Routledge.
Roppola, Tiina. 2012. Designing for the Museum Visitor Experience. London: Routledge.
Skare, Roswitha, Sigrid Stokstad and Andreas Vårheim. 2019. “ABM-utvikling
og avvikling: Institusjonell konvergens og divergens i kulturpolitikken.”
Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidsskrift 22, no. 2: 231–256. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.
2000-8325/-2019-02-03.
Smith, Philip 2001. Cultural Theory: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
14 Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen et al.
Steenberg, Andreas Schack. 1900. Folkebogssamlinger: Deres Historie og Indretning. Aarhus:
Jysk Forlagsforretning.
Tanackovic, Sanjica Faletar and Boris Badurina. 2009. “Collaboration of Croatian
Cultural Heritage Institutions: Experiences from Museums.” Museum Management and
Curatorship 24, no. 4: 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770903314696.
Torstensson, Magnus. 1993. “Is There a Nordic Public Library Model?” Libraries &
Culture 28, no. 1: 59–76.
Valtysson, Bjarki. 2012. “EUROPEANA: The Digital Construction of Europe’s
Collective Memory.” Information, Communication & Society 15, no. 2: 151–170. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.586433.
Vestheim, Geir. 1997. Fornuft, kultur og velferd: Ein historisk-sosiologisk studie av norsk
folkebibliotekpolitikk. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
Weil, Stephen. 1999. “From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The
Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum. (What Is Emerging Is a More
Entrepreneurial Institution).” Daedalus 128, no. 3: 229–258.
Zarovski, Milan. 2010. The Enlightenment and Its Eects on Modern Society. Berlin:
Springer Science & Business Media.
PART I
Libraries, Archives, and
Museums in Scandinavia
History and Policy
DOI: 10.4324/9781003188834-3
Introduction
Scandinavian libraries have been shaped and formed by social, political,
professional, and technological trends over the past 200 years. Some of these
trends represent profound developments aecting all societies and all social elds,
for example, the Age of Enlightenment and the growth of scientic thinking and
modern universities from the eighteenth century and onwards. Other examples
include industrialization, technological developments – from the printing press
and the steam engine to social media and the Internet – and nally globalization
with its migration and growth of global culture.
Some trends have a Scandinavian character, for example, the growth of the
Scandinavian social democratic welfare state during the twentieth century
(Engelstad, Larsen, and Rogstad 2017; Larsen 2018), whereas others are of a more
national character, for example, the historical coincidence that the public library
reform in Norway was implemented at the turn of the twentieth century at the
same time as Norway was struggling for full independence for the rst time in
more than 400 years.
Some trends, nally, are related to the professional eld of librarianship,
for example, the decisive inuence that German university libraries after the
Humboldtian university reforms had on academic libraries and the profound
impact of the Anglo-American public library model on public library
developments.
In this chapter, we analyze the history of Scandinavian libraries and librarian-
ship in relation to such developmental trends. Important questions include how
the dierent formative eras referred to above have left their traces on libraries and
whether we can identify a Scandinavian library model.
2
LIBRARY HISTORY OF THE
SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES
Ragnar Audunson, Henrik Jochumsen, and Kerstin Rydbeck
18 Ragnar Audunson et al.
1800–1900: The birth of modern libraries
Although Denmark and Sweden had universities and university libraries going
back to the fteenth century and national libraries were established in the middle
of the seventeenth century, it seems fair to link the birth of modern libraries to
the Age of Enlightenment and the growth of a bourgeois public sphere. In the
three Scandinavian countries, these developments were triggered at the end of the
eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century (Josephson, Karlsohn,
and Östling 2014). This period saw the establishment of the Humboldtian
university model where knowledge and the scientic search for knowledge was
the ultimate value. This ideal started to permeate the Nordic universities – the
universities in Uppsala and Lund in Sweden, Copenhagen in Denmark, and,
from 1811, the university in Kristiania, later Oslo, in Norway. The growth of
modern national libraries based on legal deposit laws and with the mandate of
documenting the national literature, not the censorship needs of an absolute
ruler, can also be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment (Henden 2017).
A scientic community presupposed access to research. Research-based
literature and universalistic university libraries striving to cover all scientic
elds and give access to the latest achievements in research were established in
all the Scandinavian countries, very much based on the German library model
developed at the University of Göttingen in the last half of the eighteenth cen-
tury (Frisvold 2021). Universal acquisition to cover the research needs of the
university professors was a central part of this model. University librarians were
supposed to have professional backgrounds from scientic disciplines taught and
researched at the university the library served. This model structured the devel-
opment of the university libraries throughout the nineteenth and the greater part
of the twentieth century. From the very few and very small university libraries
of the nineteenth century with only a handful of employees to the more numer-
ous and larger libraries towards the middle of the twentieth century, a clear
continuity can be identied stemming from this model.
One important dimension in the Age of Enlightenment was the growth of a
bourgeois public sphere with a deliberating public discussing cultural, political,
and scientic issues. Reading societies, which provided their members with
books and where the informed citizenry met and discussed, existed in all the
Scandinavian countries.
Educating the lower classes was also an integrated part of enlightenment, and
libraries providing the peasants with useful books, e.g., new and modern modes
of production, were established by utilitaristic clergymen in the rst few dec-
ades of the nineteenth century. From the 1830s, parish libraries with the under-
privileged classes as their target groups became more numerous. They had a
paternalistic prole and were often nanced by altruistic organizations such as the
Royal Norwegian Society for Development, the Swedish Society for Diusion
of Useful Knowledge, and the Society for the Proper Use of the Liberty of the
Press in Denmark. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, aclose connection
Librar y histor y of the Scandinavian countries 19
between these parish libraries and elementary schools developed. At least half
of all the parishes in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway had libraries around 1870
(Torstensson 1993).
The last decades of the nineteenth century also saw the development of an
organized and increasingly self-conscious labor movement. Trade unions, which
would come to play a decisive role in the Nordic model, grew rapidly. Also, other
mass movements, such as the temperance movement, became important. Many
of them prioritized enlightenment and cultural initiatives in the form of librar-
ies established and run by the movements and, as time went on, study circles
(Rydbeck 1995).
By the end of the nineteenth century, then, the situation could be summa-
rized as follows:
• University libraries rmly based on a model, which would structure these
libraries well into the last half of the twentieth century, were established in
all the countries.
• A national library function based on legal deposit legislation and producing
national bibliographic tools was established in all three countries.
• Libraries for common and underprivileged people, often with a paternalistic
prole, with very limited resources and without professional sta, were to be
found in the majority of municipalities. In a short time, these libraries would
be overrun by the public library revolution.
• Popular social movements, rst and foremost the labor movement, which
regarded access to culture, knowledge, and literature as vital in their project
of liberating ordinary people and elevating them socially, started to enter
the scene.
1900–1945: Modernization, mass culture, and democracy
The decades from 1900 until 1940 were a period of revolutionary change
politically, socially, and technologically. Voting rights were expanded to include
all adults. In the Scandinavian countries, implementing voting rights for all was
concluded in 1913 (Norway), 1915 (Denmark), and 1921 (Sweden). Mass organ-
izations and movements in sports, working life, and culture with the capacity
to mobilize hundreds of thousands of citizens and channel their interests and
points of view from the grassroots level to the decision-making echelons in soci-
ety were established during this period. Commercial mass culture and means of
mass communication such as broadcasting, the movie and music industry, and
newspapers with a mass circulation were developed. Industrialization exploded.
In the Scandinavian countries, the labor movement, with the social democratic
parties as its political wing, became dominant and came into government in all
three countries between 1930 and 1940, signaling the start of the process toward
a welfare state – a people’s home – encompassing all social strata, going beyond
the concept of a working class-based democracy (Friberg 2014).
20 Ragnar Audunson et al.
This concept made the idea of public librarianship, also focused upon the
publicas a whole and not specic classes or groups, very relevant. It was a time
when rationality, engineering, and scientic approaches started to permeate
all elds of life from family planning via urban planning and scientically
based industrial and agricultural production to social engineering, some-
times in perverted forms as exemplied by the inuence that eugenics had
in broad circles. The extension of democracy was paralleled by authoritarian
and oppressive fascist, Nazist, and Stalinist regimes in other parts of Europe,
giving a new vitality to the democratic role of libraries (Harris 1978). Within
this context of technological, social, and cultural change, modern librarian-
ship developed.
Modernization and the growing role of science and academic libraries
The rapid and profound modernization process, which took place after the turn
of the century, presupposed advanced knowledge and research. Universities
expanded and new institutions at university level were established, often in
professional sciences. The number of students, which at the turn of the century
was not very much more than 1,000 at the major universities in the three coun-
tries, grew by several hundred percent in the decades leading up to World War II.
Nevertheless, only a very small margin – from 1% to 2% – of each yearly cohort
would reach that educational level. However, initiatives were taken to open up
education to gifted young people from more modest backgrounds.
As universities expanded, so did university libraries. Collections, sta, and the
number of users grew. New buildings were inaugurated. The academic libraries,
however, expanded and developed within the German university library tradi-
tion of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Librarians were recruited
from among university graduates who went through an internal apprenticeship.
Stacks were closed. Services were targeted towards the needs of the university
professors, and the proximity between librarians and the professors they should
serve was very close – a trait that today is regarded as modern and innovative
(embedded librarianship).
The early institutionalization of public libraries 1900–1940
While the academic libraries expanded and developed within a professional
framework established more than 100 years earlier, the public library revolution
implemented around the turn of the century in all three countries meant a break
with earlier models of libraries for the general public.
The Anglo-American public library model was implemented and insti-
tutionalized in the three Scandinavian countries more or less simultaneously
and in very parallel ways, albeit with some national dierences. In all the
Scandinavian countries, the so-called “library” revolution is linked to entre-
preneurial personalities who played vital roles in triggering the development:
Librar y histor y of the Scandinavian countries 21
Haakon Nyhuus in Norway, Andreas Schack Steenberg in Denmark, and Valfrid
Palmgren in Sweden (Torstensson 1993; Dahlkild and Bille Larsen, I 2021;
Fr isvold 2021).
The public library movement was built on the following basic principles:
1 Libraries were for the general public, not for specic groups, e.g., the poorer
classes.
2 The principle of free borrowing was established as a mainstay in the profes-
sional ideology.
3 From early on, services to children were integrated into the public library
model.
4 The collections were presented and made accessible on open shelves.
5 Active mediation and outreach initiatives were taken.
6 Although education and enlightenment were the primary purposes of public
libraries, the role and importance of entertainment and leisure time reading
was recognized – if not as a goal in its own right, as an instrument to pro-
mote educational literature.
7 Promoting social mobility and self-development was an important goal.
The public library revolution was vital in establishing librarianship as a
professional, political, and administrative eld, and it was vital in promoting
a reading public due to the immense growth in the number of users and the
lending gures it led to compared to earlier libraries for common people. While
the development of academic libraries represented continuity from the previous
century, the Anglo-American public library model represented a completely new
paradigm and a break with former traditions.
In the course of the rst two decades, in all three countries, important mile-
stones such as the establishment of earmarked state grants to public libraries,
professional journals, national professional library meetings, and library associ-
ations were passed. Denmark deviated from the other two in adopting a library
law and establishing a state directorate for public libraries as early as in 1920.
Norway got its rst library law in 1935 but Sweden had to wait until the end of
the century – 1997.
Dahlkild and Bille Larsen describe the development of Danish public libraries
after the adoption of the library law in 1920 and up to 1940 as dynamic: The
state directorate was given a relatively strong mandate. A number of new library
buildings were erected, public libraries were to be found in most municipalities
by the end of the period, and a library education was established. They conclude
that at the outbreak of World War II, Denmark had a fully developed public
library system lying at the forefront internationally (Dahlkild and Bille Larsen,
II 2021).
One particular trait in Sweden during this period was the growth and impor-
tance of study circle libraries, linked primarily to the temperance and the labor
movement’s free educational work. In the late 1930s, there were more than 5,500
22 Ragnar Audunson et al.
such study circle libraries in the country, mostly in rural and smaller urban areas
(Berg and Edquist 2017, 98–99). Toward the end of the 1940s, more than a third
of the Swedish municipalities still did not have a municipal public library, and a
study circle library then generally ran the public library service (Frenander 2012,
28–41). Gradually, however, the study circle libraries merged with the libraries
run by the municipalities.
At the outbreak of World War II, then, the foundations for a political, admin-
istrative, and professional library eld were laid in all three countries and library
schools were established. Of the three countries, Denmark had the most strongly
institutionalized public library network.
The era of the welfare state and libraries: 1945–1975
Expansion of universities and changing roles of academic libraries
Equalizing access to higher education was a major goal for the social demo-
cratic governments that were in power in all the Scandinavian countries after
1945. Simultaneously, this was also a period valuing rationality and engineering,
and thus education, in all walks of life. Initiatives to give young people coming
from a working-class or agricultural background access to education, e.g., the
establishment of the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund in 1947 oering
state-provided loans to students, were taken. Denmark and Sweden followed
some years later. Free hands, however, were needed in the reconstruction and
industrialization of the countries. Directing resources to solve the acute housing
problems that people experienced in the late 1940s and the 1950s took priority
over using the same resources to build new university and college campuses or,
for that matter, libraries. The number of students was relatively stable between
1945 and 1960. University libraries were still institutions rst and foremost serv-
ing the needs of the professors in addition to this thin layer of students.
However, the educational system below university level, including upper
secondary education, expanded. At the beginning of the 1960s, this implied a
growth in the number of young people who met university enrollment require-
ments. In the decade between 1960 and 1970, the number of university students
exploded by between 300% and 400% in all of the countries. In addition, the
process of integrating hitherto vocational education areas, e.g., nursing, social
work, teacher training, and librarianship, into the system of academic education
added to the explosion. The universities and colleges thus changed from being
for the elite into mass universities, which in the course of a relatively few years
had hundreds of thousands of students.
The development of higher education also changed the roles and usage of
academic libraries. New universities and colleges were created, which meant
that the number of academic libraries increased – and thereby also the need for
new, competent library sta. It was too resource-intensive and time-c onsuming
for the academic libraries to train their own sta in this new situation. And
Librar y histor y of the Scandinavian countries 23
last but not least, the competence needs changed at the academic libraries as a
consequence of the transformation from elite to mass universities. Practically
simultaneously, around 1970, the library education in the three countries estab-
lished educational programs for academic librarians. Simultaneously with the
growth in the number of students came a demand for the abolition of professor
rule and changes in teaching following the youth rebellion. This development
meant that both lending and stang in the research libraries increased vefold
from 1945 to 1970 (Dahlkild and Bille Larsen, II 2021, 196–216).
These developments and the consequences they had for academic librarian-
ship meant a qualitative change in academic libraries and a departure from the
200-year-old Göttingen model, which can be paralleled to the public library
revolution that took place in the other branch of librarianship some 60 years
before.
Cultural democracy and the expansion of public libraries
As stated above, reconstructing the economy after ve years of occupation was
the main priority in Denmark and Norway in the period immediately after the
end of World War II. The situation in Sweden, which had succeeded in stay-
ing neutral during the war and in keeping its economic capacity intact, was
somewhat dierent. Although priority had been given to reconstruction and
developing the industrial capacity, promoting democratic access to culture in
all three countries was seen as vital in developing the welfare state, democracy,
and ordinary people’s quality of life – a common vision in all three Scandinavian
countries. The task was seen as giving common people access to high culture.
Institutions serving such needs in the dierent cultural elds – theater, music,
art, and movies – were established in all the countries, and policy documents for
a democratic cultural policy were formulated immediately after the war, e.g., the
Letter of Culture (Kulturbrevet) in Norway, a document elaborated by broad
segments within the cultural eld, and the pamphlet Democracy’s Demands to
Libraries in Denmark (Dahlkild and Bille Larsen, II 2021; Frisvold 2021).
The development of public libraries must be seen in this context of a policy
for cultural democracy. Public libraries were an integral part of this policy of
cultural democracy. The pamphlet Democracy’s Demands to Libraries explic-
itly saw the democratic role of libraries as vital and deeply intertwined with the
restoration of democracy. The document even called for citizen participation in
the governance of libraries through so-called “users’ councils” – an approach
regarded today as innovative and modern (Dahlkild and Bille Larsen, II 2021).
Public libraries in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden embarked upon the post-
war period from dierent positions. In Denmark, a solid platform had been estab-
lished in the interwar period following the adoption of the library law in 2020.
That platform remained relatively intact during the war. Norwegian libraries
were harder hit. Fifty libraries, mainly in the northernmost parts of the country,
were destroyed (Frisvold 2021). The library oce in the responsible ministry
24 Ragnar Audunson et al.
estimated that reorganization would take years. Sweden succeeded in staying out
of the war and was consequently less aected.
In all of the Scandinavian countries, public libraries were owned, nanced,
and run by the local governments. The Danish library from 1920 and the new
Norwegian law adopted in 1947 made it compulsory for local governments to
have a public library and also dened minimum grants to be allocated to the local
libra ries. Both count ries establ ished a state directorate to coordinate central l ibrary
policies and to see to it that the law was complied with by the municipalities.
Sweden had neither a library law nor a state directorate. At state level in Sweden,
public library work was regarded primarily as part of the work for public enlight-
enment. Consequently, the National Board of Education (Skolöverstyrelsen)
handled the public library issues. In the early 1970s, however, this changed as a
consequence of the new cultural policy. From now on, public libraries (including
school libraries) were rst and foremost considered as cultural institutions, and
the national responsibility was handed over to the new Swedish Arts Council. In
2010, it changed again, and since then the Royal library has been responsible for
the whole library sector, but still with the Ministry of Culture as responsible for
the national library policy (Thomas 2009; Rydbeck 2022).
In spite of the dierences between Sweden and the two other countries as
far as legislation and a state directorate were concerned, all the countries had a
system with earmarked state grants in the rst few decades after 1945.
In all three countries, the municipalities responsible for libraries in general
were very small and had limited resources. However, during these years, there
were several mergers of municipalities. In Norway, a wave of mergers took place
in the last half of the 1960s. In Denmark, the most important reform was imple-
mented in 1970. In Sweden, the most important reforms took place in 1952 and
in 1971. In Denmark and Sweden, but not so much in Norway, these reforms
made the remaining municipalities larger and nancially stronger, and increased
their opportunities to develop the public library services. Consequently, the col-
lections grew, the number of professionally trained sta increased, new library
buildings were built, new branches opened, and outreach activities began to
develop. Norway deviated somewhat from Denmark and Sweden, and still has a
very high number of very small municipalities and thus a much higher propor-
tion of very small libraries with short opening hours and a part-time librarian
without professional education.
Around 1950, all the Scandinavian countries had a two-layer system with
municipal libraries and a network of county libraries. The role of the county
libraries was partly professional counseling, partly to supplement local collec-
tions, and partly to facilitate cooperation and inter-library lending. In addition,
Denmark and Norway had a national level in the state directorates. The state
level in all the countries, however, actively stimulated local libraries via ear-
marked grants and organizational initiatives, e.g., three national lending centers
that were created in the 1960s by the Swedish state in dierent parts of the coun-
try, as the last link in the public libraries’ media supply (Thomas 2009).
Librar y histor y of the Scandinavian countries 25
Although ambitious library plans were developed in Denmark and Norway
immediately after World War II, as stated above, other needs did not give very
much room for costly library initiatives. That was a bit dierent in Sweden,
and 75% of Swedish municipalities received new library buildings between
1947 and 1963 (Torstensson 1993, 59). The economic growth in the late 1950s
and early 1960s, however, created new openings for a similar development in
Denmark and Norway. The modernization and investment in public libraries in
the Scandinavian countries during the 1960s provided inspiration for the library
development in the United Kingdom (Black 2011).
Of particular importance was the Danish library law from 1964. In addition to
preserving the principle of making libraries a mandatory municipal institution,
the principle of free borrowing on a national level, meaning that everyone living
in the country can lend freely at any library, was explicitly stated in the law. The
law required all larger municipalities to have a library-trained leader. The law
also contained nancial provisions where municipal grants to public libraries
generated state grants, thus stimulating local authorities to increase allocations to
libraries; it also expanded the mission of public libraries beyond the promotion
of books and reading, opening up for other media and the promotion of cultural
activities in a broader sense.
Norway limped a bit after Denmark and Sweden. The law triggering the
modernization of Norwegian public libraries was adopted by the parliament in
1971, and implemented in 1972. The Danish law of 1964 heavily inuenced
this law. The purpose of libraries was practically identical, opening up for other
media than printed ones and a broader perspective on cultural activities, indicat-
ing the close links in Scandinavian librarianship. Requirements regarding pro-
fessional education were formulated. In order to receive earmarked state grants
for libraries, local governments had to comply with regulations specied by the
state directorate regarding, for example, the standard of the library premises.
Although Norway throughout the period has been lagging somewhat behind its
Scandinavian neighbors as far as running costs per capita for public libraries and
gures for lending and library use are concerned, there can be no doubt that the
1971 law initiated a signicant development in Norwegian public libraries.
The expansion of the public libraries in the Scandinavian countries must be
seen in close connection with the so-called “new cultural policy” in the 1960s
and 1970s. In Denmark, the establishment of the Danish Ministry of Culture in
1961 was a milestone. In Norway, the governmental white paper from the early
1970s and the development of municipal cultural administrations following in
its wake represented a similar milestone. In Sweden, the new cultural policy was
approved by the parliament in 1974. These policies were based on a strategy to
democratize culture by making it accessible to the entire population regardless
of social background or geographical location (Nilsson 2003, 231–255). This
welfare-oriented cultural policy vision was not only expressed in the expansion
of the number of new libraries but also in the growth of new media, such as
gramophone records in the collections and in a wide range of cultural activities
26 Ragnar Audunson et al.
in the libraries in the form of, for example, children’s theater, lm screenings,
and exhibitions (Ørom 2005; Jochumsen and Hvenegaard Rasmussen 2006;
Hedemark 2009). This development caused librarians to add new and more pop-
ular cultural media to the libraries’ collections and to prioritize the representa-
tion of more marginalized cultural forms such as women’s culture and workers’
culture in the libraries.
Another feature toward the end of this period was the changing relationship
between the state and local governments. During the rst few decades after 1945,
all three countries had a system with earmarked grants, giving the state opportu-
nities to guide and shape local library policies directly. Comply, or we take away
the grants! Gradually earmarked grants were supplanted by block grants, which
the local government could use according to its own priorities. Sweden was rst,
with this switch taking place there in 1965.
One interesting feature that is particular for Scandinavia is the library’s role as
a tool for supporting a national production of literature in these relatively small
language communities. Both Norway and Sweden have arrangements where the
state buys a certain number of copies of published books deemed to be of a
satisfactory quality and distributes them for free to the public libraries. All the
countries have arrangements where authors are compensated for the use of their
works in libraries.
Three trends were central in the period 1945–1975:
1 An expansion of libraries within a political context aimed at democratizing
access to cultural experiences, from the middle of the 1960s supplemented
with a policy for cultural democracy meaning broadening cultural forms,
activities, and media to be integrated (Vestheim 1997).
2 A professionalization of the eld. The role of professionally educated librar-
ians increased (Audunson 2015).
3 The start of a development, rst in Sweden, from a state intervening and
steering directly via earmarked grants to a state relying on indicative and
indirect guidance via the change from earmarked grants to block grants.
The comeback of the market, digitization, and libraries:
1975–2000
At the beginning of the 1980s, the nancial boom that was a signicant factor in
the Scandinavian expansion of the welfare state in previous decades was replaced
by a nancial crisis. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Sweden, followed by
Denmark and Norway, respectively, got new right-wing governments, whose
goal was to reform, modernize, and rationalize and to some extent privatize the
welfare state. This had to be done through decentralization, market manage-
ment, and increased eciency – or in other words: new public management. For
the public libraries, this meant sta reductions, restrictions on opening hours,
closures of branches, and cuts in the material budget.
Librar y histor y of the Scandinavian countries 27
When the rst library law was nally accepted by the Swedish parliament
in 1996, it was a consequence of the deteriorating economic situation of the
municipalities. Combined with the neoliberal spirit, ideas arose among both
municipal and national politicians about privatizing public library activities and
introducing fees on book loans. One municipality tried to outsource the public
library services, but the experiment ended in disaster: After only one year, the
company went bankrupt and the municipality had to take back the responsibility.
This rst attempt, however, was followed in some other municipalities during
the 1990s, with better results (Hansson and Heedman 2004, 4; Hedemark 2009,
101–105; Lindberg 2015, 3 – 4).
The development made the government and the parliament nally realize the
need for legislation. The new library act, implemented in 1997, focused mainly
on the public libraries (SFS 1996:1596). It established that there had to be public
libraries in all municipalities where the inhabitants could borrow books free of
charge, and that the responsibility for this lay with the municipality. The public
libraries would also provide computerized information and pay special attention
to the needs of certain specied groups such as children and young people, the
disabled, and immigrants. The library law established the right to library ser-
vices, but did not say how to meet the requirements. And there was nothing
about stang or the competence of the sta.
But the law also focused to some extent on the research libraries. It was stated
that there should be libraries at all universities and colleges, and that this was the
responsibility of the state. There were also demands for collaboration between
public and research libraries. The act stated that research libraries had to make
literature from their collections available to the public libraries free of charge,
and to assist them in their eorts to provide users with a good library service.
The Library Act very much regarded public and research libraries as one joint
national library resource.
Up until 1983, the Danish state had reimbursed the municipalities half of their
expenses for public libraries. Thereafter the libraries became part of the municipal
block grants, and as such, they had to live with the uncertainty associated with
being dependent on municipal priorities. Norway introduced the same system in
connection with a revision of the law on public libraries in 1985. As previously
mentioned, Sweden had already introduced block grants in 1965.
The public libraries’ response to this development was, among other things,
to move in new directions. One of these was to make dierent approaches to the
private business sector by establishing information services and business services
in the libraries. The attention paid to the business community could also be seen
as a sign that a generally more market-oriented way of thinking began to gain
a foothold in public libraries. This was reected by the fact that librarians now
often referred to the library’s users as “customers,” just as the choice of material
became more demand-oriented.
At the same time, the public libraries were positioning themselves as impor-
tant institutions when it came to counteracting the risk of a division of the
28 Ragnar Audunson et al.
population into an information technology A and B team, which at the time
received great political attention. The libraries were also implementing their
potential concerning the increasing number of ethnic minorities who became
part of the population. The main traits of the library model proved resilient in
its meeting of neoliberalism challenges in the 1980s and 1990s, questioning the
principle of free services and library services as a universal and publicly nanced
welfare arrangement.
Conclusion
The dierent formative eras from the Enlightenment to the Internet, globaliza-
tion, and social media have denitely all left their traces on Scandinavian librar-
ianship. Studying libraries is like doing an archeological study uncovering still
existing layers reecting all these periods. Two trends have, however, proved
to be particularly profound and resilient: The traditions from the early nine-
teenth century, which have structured academic librarianship, and the ideas of
the public library revolution of the early twentieth century. In spite of many pre-
dictions (e.g., Nicholas 2012) that libraries will become irrelevant and obsolete,
libraries seem to have succeeded in adapting to political, social, and technolog-
ical changes based on their traditional platform, remain relevant, and survive as
libraries recognizable as such.
Throughout the twentieth century, there has been a marked dualism in
librarianship between academic libraries and public libraries. During the last few
decades of that century, there seems to have been a process of convergence: The
development of universities from elite institutions to mass institutions has led
university libraries to adopt working methods similar to those found in public
libraries, e.g., as meeting places and arenas for public debate.
In the twentieth century, both public libraries and academic libraries devel-
oped within the framework of the Scandinavian social democratic welfare state
based on equal access to basic services such as education, health, housing, and
culture. One can talk of a Scandinavian or Nordic library model (Torstensson
2009). Neoliberalism challenged that model and, to varying degrees in the three
countries, led to elements of privatization and market solutions in all the tradi-
tional elds of welfare. One can, however, maintain that the Scandinavian model
has survived within the eld of librarianship.
References
Audunson, Ra gnar. 2015. “Bibliotekarene – en profe sjon under press? Inst itusjonal isering,
de-institusjonalisering og re-institusjonalisering av et profesjonelt felt.” In Samle, for-
midle, dele: 75 år med bibliotekarutdanning, edited by Ragnar Audunson, 47–71. Oslo:
ABM-media.
Berg, Anne and Samuel Edquist. 2017. The Capitalist State and the Construction of Civil
Society: Public Funding and the Regulations of Popular Education in Sweden, 1870–1991.
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52455-9.
Librar y histor y of the Scandinavian countries 29
Black, Alistair. 2011. “‘New Beauties’: The Design of British Public Library Buildings in
the 1960s.” Library Trends 60, no. 1: 71–111.
Dahlkild, Nan and Steen Bille Larsen, eds. 2021. Dansk bibliotekshistorie. I: Biblioteker
for de få: tiden før 1920 and II: Biblioteker for alle: tiden efter 1920. Aarhus: Aarhus
universitetsforlag.
Engelstad, Fredrik, Håkon Larsen and Jon Rogstad. 2017. “The Public Sphere in the
Nordic Model.” In Institutional Change in the Public Sphere: Views on the Nordic Model,
edited by Fredrik Engelstad, Håkon Larsen, Jon Rogstad, and Kari Steen-Johnsen,
46–70. DeGruyter Open. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546330-004.
Frenander, Anders. 2012. “Statens förhållande till folkbiblioteken, 1912–2012.” In Styra
eller stödja? Svensk folkbibliotekspolitik under hundra år, edited by Anders Frenander and
Jenny Lindberg, 15–88. Borås: Borås University.
Friberg, Anna. 2014. “Folkhem mets demokr ati – en analys av den s vensk a socialdemok rat-
ins språkbruk kring demokratiska deltagandeformer.” In: Slagmark – Tidsskrift for
idéhistorie, no. 69: 89–104. https://doi.org/10.7146/sl.v0i69.104324.
Frisvold, Øivind. 2021. Kunnskap er makt: norsk bibliotekshistorie – kultur, politikk og samfunn.
Oslo: ABM-media.
Hansson, Johanna and Julia Heedman. 2004. Privatisering av folkbibliotek – skildrat i politiska
dokument under 1990-talet. Borås: Borås University.
Harris, Michael H. 1978. “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist
Interpretation of History.” In Public Library Purpose, edited by Barry Totterdell, 39–51.
London: Bingley.
Hedemark, Åse. 2009. “Det föreställda folkbiblioteket: en diskursanalytisk studie av bib-
lioteksdebatter i svenska medier 1970–2006.” PhD diss., Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Henden, Johan. 2017. “Det er ikke alene et Universitets-, men også et Nationalbibliothek:
Axel Charlot Drolsum i universitetsbiblioteket 1870–1922.” PhD diss., Trondheim:
NTNU, Norwegian University for Science and Technology.
Jochumsen, Henrik and Casper Hvenegaard Rasmussen. 2006. Folkebiblioteket under
forandring: Modernitet, felt og diskurs. Copenhagen: Danmarks bibliotekforening and
Danmarks bibliotekskole.
Josephson, Peter, Thomas Karlsohn, and Johan Östling. 2014. “Introduction: The
Humboldtian Tradition and its Transformation.” In The Humboldtian Tradition: Origins
and Legacies, edited by Peter Josephson, Thomas Karlsohn and Johan Östling, 1–18.
Leiden/Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
Larsen, Håkon. 2018. “Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Nordic Model of the
Public Sphere.” Journal of Documentation 74, no. 1: 187–194.
Lindberg, Annica. 2015. “‘Vi har ju vår yrkesstolthet’: folkbibliotekariers föreställnin-
gar om samt upplevelser av folkbibliotek på entreprenad.” MA thesis, Borås: Borås
University.
Nicholas, Davis. 2012. “Disintermediated, decoupled and down.” CILIP Update 29–31.
Nilsson, Sven. 2003. Kulturens nya vägar: kultur, kulturpolitik och kulturutveckling i Sverige.
Malmö: Polyvalent.
Ørom, Anders. 2005. “Folkebiblioteket i samfundet: Et rids af 100 års historie.” In Det
stærke folkebibliotek – 100 år med Danmarks Biblioteksforening, edited by Martin Dyrbye,
Jørgen Svane-Mikkelsen, Leif Lørring, and Anders Ørom, 9–37. Copenhagen:
Danmarks Biblioteksforening.
Rydbeck, Kerstin. 1995. “Nykter läsning: den svenska godtemplarrörelsen och littera-
turen 1896–1925.” PhD diss., Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Rydbeck, Kerstin. 2022. “Lagstiftning och styrdokument för de oentliga biblioteken.”
In Biblioteksgeogran: en antologi om svenskt biblioteksväsende och om biblioteksforskning,
30 Ragnar Audunson et al.
edited by Roger Blomgren, Katarina Michnik och Johan Sundeen, 49–83. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
SFS. 1996:1596. Bibliotekslag.
Thomas, Barbro. 2009. Bibliotekslagstiftning: perspektiv och exempel. Stockholm: Svensk
biblioteksförening.
Torstensson, Magnus. 1993. Is there a Nordic Public Library Model? Libraries and Culture,
28, no. 1: 59–76.
Torstensson, Magnus. 2009. “Library Spirit in the Baltic-Nordic Region: Comparative
Analysis.” In Library Spirit in the Nordic and Baltic Countries: Historical Perspectives, edited
by Martin Dyrbye, Ilkka Mäkinen, Tiiu Reimo, and Magnus Torstensson, 183–186.
Tampere: Hibolire.
Vestheim, Geir. 1997. Fornuft, kultur og velferd: ein historisk-sosiologisk studie av norsk
folkebibliotekpolitikk. Oslo: Norske samlaget.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003188834-4
Introduction
“Archives were not drawn up in the interest or for the information of posterity.”
Even if not entirely true, this famous quote by English archivist Hilary Jenkinson
(1922, 11) points out that archival documents – records – are normally created as a
byproduct, and for the benet, of an organization’s administrative functions, not
for the assistance of some historian or genealogist 150 years later. Nonetheless,
the latter “secondary” uses of archives are what springs to mind when the gen-
eral public think about archives. As sites of cultural heritage, archives are aligned
with libraries and museums. But to fully appreciate archives as heritage, we also
need to understand that records more often than not are created and preserved
for the benet of the original creator.
To a large degree, the development of Scandinavian archives resembles that in
the rest of Europe. Many of the tendencies are similar, which is why it is also nat-
ural to present the dierent Scandinavian archival histories in one piece, while
highlighting the dierences that are still found.
In the following historical overview of Scandinavian archives, the main focus
will lie on the modern state institutions, since they have until now dominated
the archival landscape. Until the end of the twentieth century, the state sector in
Denmark had a near monopoly on organized archival institutions (Bundsgaard
and Gelting 1992). In Norway and Sweden, the state sector has also been domi-
nant, and both archival policy and the profession have largely been shaped in the
mold of state archives. Archival legislation has mainly concerned state archives.
However, since the nineteenth century and particularly in recent decades, the
archival sector in municipalities and the private archival sector have been thriv-
ing. We will therefore treat them separately after the general chronological sur-
vey to which we now turn.
3
THE HISTORY OF ARCHIVES IN
SCANDINAVIA
Samuel Edquist, Leiv Bjelland, and Lars-Erik Hansen
32 Samuel Edquist et al.
Medieval and early-modern Scandinavian archives
If we exclude prehistoric rock carvings and runestones, which may be seen as
documentary evidence, the dawn of Scandinavian archives occurred in the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries. Initially, they were records of the king, often
moving from castle to castle. Archiving before the nineteenth century was almost
exclusively an integrated part of the administrative and legal functions of states,
cities, religious organizations, or aristocratic families. Some records, document-
ing e.g. land ownership, debt, and treaties, could be relevant over the passage of
many generations (Duchein 1992; Jørgensen 1968).
In Sweden and Denmark, central state archival institutions were established
in the seventeenth century as parts of the growing early-modern state appara-
tuses. The uses of archives were still mainly for legal and administrative reasons,
but they were also utilized in the proto-nationalist historiography of the early-
modern states. In Denmark, a separate institution was established in 1663 for
records of a legal and long-lasting nature, not crucial for the daily matter of aairs,
which had been kept separately since the fourteenth century from more tempo-
rary records. These historical archives came to be known as the “Secret Archive”
and developed into a resource for historical research during the eighteenth cen-
tury (Kjölstad 2012; Paasch 2018). In Sweden, the predecessor of the National
Archives was established in 1618 as a function within the Royal Chancellery.
Internal regulations ensured that records were kept and archived in an orderly
way (Smedberg 2012). In Norway, a royal archival repository was located at
Akershus fortress from around 1300 AD. For about 400 years until 1814, Norway
was subordinated to Denmark, and Akershus fortress became an archive for the
Danish king’s representative in Norway. Many records on Norwegian aairs
were also transferred to Copenhagen (Jørgensen 1968, 175–176).
The historical turn and nation building
If the legal and administrative aspect of archives had dominated until the eight-
eenth century, a new role rose to prominence with the modern era. While the
records creators’ primary interests remained crucial and still are today, external
agents’ interests in archives became more prominent, in two ways: First, what
we now call “freedom of information” interests – famously put in eect with
the French Revolution, when access to public archives was proclaimed a gen-
eral civic right (Duchein 1992, 17); secondly, the generally growing interest in
history within societies at large also aected archives: They were largely trans-
formed into tools of academic historiography, and archives became part of nation
building and similar forms of identity politics during the nineteenth century
(Berger 2013; Cook 2013). At the same time, state archives in Europe, includ-
ing Scandinavia, increased in organizational size and complexity, and emerged
as independent institutions. They also increasingly became more accessible to
external users – primarily historians.
The histor y of archives in Scandinavia 33
Simultaneously, a modern archivist profession emerged, largely recruited
from historians, and the two groups maintained close bonds long into the twen-
tieth century in all Scandinavian countries, just as in other Western countries
(Ridener 2009).
In Sweden, the National Archives developed into a central archival repository
of the state, especially from the 1830s. The new and more historical dimension
of the National Archives was increasingly emphasized, in line with traditional
administrative functions. There was an increase in the number of employees,
and eorts were made to arrange and describe old records that had remained
disordered from a long time before, as well as to transcribe and print histori-
cal records. The National Archives gradually obtained more storage facilities
in Stockholm, although there was a constant need for more, and subsequently
there was an increase in the inclusion of records that had until then been stored
at individual state agencies (Norberg 2007).
In Denmark, a similar development began in the second half of the nine-
teenth century. A peculiar outcome of the transformation in Denmark was that
for some decades, there were two parallel national archival authorities. The old
Secret Archive remained a separate body, although it transferred to a new min-
istry for the Church and education service, and from the 1850s, it received state
records that had been created until 1750; this relieved a state administration that
was in dire need of more space. However, noncurrent records created after 1750
were transferred for preservation in a new institution, the Kingdom’s Archives
(Kongerigets arkiver), established in the 1860s (Kjölstad 2012; Paasch 2018). After a
couple of decades, the two were united into a single National Archive.
While the Danish and Swedish National Archives trace a direct continuity
from medieval and early-modern state archives, things were dierent in Norway.
Norway became independent of Denmark in 1814, entering instead a personal
union with Sweden, yet with its own constitution and a large degree of auton-
omy apart from in foreign and military aairs. The National Archives was estab-
lished shortly afterwards, initially as an oce under the Ministry of Finance and
handled by the ministry’s ordinary sta until the 1830s when the rst designated
archivist was employed. Initially, the National Archives was rst and foremost
a repository that was to secure records necessary for the government apparatus,
both from the old repository at Akershus fortress and from the new adminis-
tration. Toward the mid-nineteenth century, the National Archives emerged
as an independent organization that also had a cultural heritage role, and the
employment of romantic poet Henrik Wergeland may be regarded as symbolic
(Svendsen 2017).
Initially, an important task for the Norwegian National Archives was trans-
ferring material relevant for Norway from the Danish state. Some guidelines had
been set out in the Kiel Treaty, and after negotiations, the rst transfers took
place in 1820. Initially, the focus was on records of administrative value; only
later did records primarily of historical value become the focus for subsequent
negotiations and transfers. Control over the archives documenting the governing
34 Samuel Edquist et al.
of Norway remained for a long time a diplomatic tangle between the countries;
it was not nally resolved until 1990 (Svendsen 2017).
Early archival legislation
The general development of the Scandinavian national archives followed a
similar path: They crystallized as independent institutions within the govern-
ment apparatus, with an increased number of employees. In the 1840s, they were
transferred to the ministries for Church and education in all countries, and in
the 1870s and 1880s, the national archives as independent agencies were estab-
lished. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century gave ample proof of an
extensive institutional development of the state archives in all countries, as well
as increased legal regulation.
In Sweden, there was no separate law on archives until 1991. Instead, public
sector archives had been indirectly regulated by the freedom of information
legislation, which from 1766 had stipulated that citizens have a general right
of access to the state’s (and later also municipal bodies’) written records (unless
they were designated as secret). This led to a wide notion of “archives” in
Sweden; generally records are considered archived at an early stage, when they
are still kept by the original creator. A similar wide notion has been prevalent in
Norway, while the Danish denition of archives has largely excluded contem-
porary records.
From as early as the seventeenth century, there were rules regarding the
orderly formation of record categories such as registries, concepts, and incoming
letters within the Swedish Royal Chancellery. From the late nineteenth century,
a series of new regulations concerning the state archives was issued, specifying
the obligations and organization of the National Archives, as well as basic rules
regarding archival care. There were also general regulations about appraisal –
which was seen as an increasingly unavoidable task – making it clear that all
destruction of records must be sanctioned by the National Archives (Norberg
2007; Smedberg2012).
As in Sweden, the rst archival law in Norway came late (1992), but other
forms of regulation were in place earlier. The creation of records in state bod-
ies and municipalities had been rudimentarily regulated since the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (Valderhaug 2011). The tasks of the National Archives
were described, at its foundation, in a governmental resolution as safeguarding
“qualied documents” from Akershus fortress. In the early twentieth century,
this was elaborated in a royal resolution, which established a national archival
agency led by the National Archivist as the leader for all state archival institutions
(Marthinsen 1983).
Denmark saw its rst Archives Act in 1889, which was short and largely reg-
ulated the tasks of the new National Archives. In addition, there were circulars
and other internal regulations, e.g., on the transfer of records (Eriksen 1993;
Kjölstad 2012, 175).
The histor y of archives in Scandinavia 35
A network of state archival institutions
A common theme is that the history began with archival institutions for the
central government in the capital. During the last half of the nineteenth century,
regional state archives outside the capitals developed in all countries. Norway
was rst, with institutions in Trondheim (1850) and Bergen (1885) – both at rst
duly submitted to the regional authorities but integrated in the National Archives
in the early twentieth century. During the 1900s, six additional regional archives
(soon labeled “state archives,” statsarkiver) were established. Until an organiza-
tional restructuring in 2016, the state archives had total responsibility for archives
from their area (Svendsen 2017).
The new Danish Archive law from 1889 stipulated the establishment of three
regional state archives (in Copenhagen, Odense, and Viborg), soon known as
“county archives” (landsarkiver). The county archives (a fourth was established in
Aabenraa in the 1930s) were part of the unied state archival agency. A similar
development occurred in Sweden, where regional state archives (landsarkiv) were
established from 1899 until 1935 at seven locations (Vadstena, Lund, Uppsala,
Visby, Gothenburg, Östersund, and Härnösand).
In the past few decades, there has been a tendency towards organizational
centralization of the state-level archives in Scandinavia. In Sweden, the so-called
“War Archives” was discontinued as a separate government agency under the
Ministry of Defense, and became a section of the National Archives in the
1990s; the same happened to the regional state archives in 2010. In Denmark,
the central-state archival agency incorporated, in 1993, the Danish Data Archive
in Odense, which primarily stores quantitative research data from various
disciplines (Clausen and Marker 2000). Norway has seen several mergers of
private institutions with the National Archives from the 1980s onwards, such
as the Norwegian Private Archive Institute, the Norwegian Historical Source
Institute, and the Sámi Archives (Svendsen 2017). During the 2010s, the National
Archives of all countries were reorganized and based upon functions rather than
ge ography.
Crystallizing out a separate archival theory
Around the turn of the twentieth century, a distinct archival theory became
dominant all over Europe. The principle of provenance, respect des fonds in French,
served a dual purpose: A pragmatic solution for the transfer of records from cre-
ators to archival institutions – they did not have to be reorganized more than
necessary – but it also reected the interests and theoretical views of academic
historiography. For historians, archives ought to be as “neutral” and “authentic”
as possible, and that was regarded as being accomplished only when the archives
were seen as “organically” born out of the transactions of the original creators.
These views became almost universally adopted by the European archivists dur-
ing this time (see Chapter 8, this volume).
36 Samuel Edquist et al.
In Sweden, the principle of provenance was complemented by the idea that
the “original order” within the archive should be kept, sometimes called “the
structure principle.” In Sweden, this was soon the ocial archival policy from
the National Archives in the early twentieth century, with the aim of ordering
the archives that still remained within the creating bodies. With a particularly
Swedish model for archival description introduced at the same time, most gov-
ernment agencies had to arrange their archives in series within certain catego-
ries, such as minutes and copies of sent letters. This model remained in state
archives until the 2010s and was also almost entirely followed by municipal and
private archives.
In Denmark, the principle of provenance was formally adopted in 1903, but
this occurred slightly later in Norway, in 1913. Arguably as a consequence of
the disagreement with Denmark over archives from the Denmark-Norway era,
Norway defended a principle of “territorial provenance,” i.e., that records related
to a specic area were to be controlled by whoever controlled the area, even if
that meant removing records from the archives of previous powers (Svendsen
2017).
Archival expansion in the welfare states
In the twentieth century, there was a general growth in archives altogether,
due to various and mutually inuencing factors. Most importantly, there was a
general rise in the state bureaucracy and organization with the evolving welfare
state, and also a technological development that made record creating easier,
such as the typewriter and copying techniques. Increasingly, new formats were
introduced in the archives, where photographs and audiovisual recordings came
to supplement written papers. This led to new challenges with methods of pres-
ervation, as well as a need to reformulate the classical notion of records, which
had for a long time been based on textual documents.
The growth of archives put new questions on the agenda for Scandinavian as
well as international archives – not least the planning of archiving from the start,
and the need for appraisal. In many respects, the development of the twentieth
century forced the archival functions to somewhat go back a couple of steps
toward the more bureaucratic-administrative end of the axis. For example, in
Sweden, the National Archives increasingly functioned in a role of, so to speak,
controlling the documentation all over the state sector, to decrease the overpro-
duction of archives, and not least to assist with appraisal.
In all Scandinavian countries, the destruction of records became an increas-
ingly important part of archival work from the mid-twentieth century to the
present day. Common to all countries has been a certain pragmatism, led more
by economic incentives than by international appraisal theory. In order to nd
a path between total retention and total destruction, various forms of sampling
have been used (where, e.g., records concerning persons born on certain dates
The histor y of archives in Scandinavia 37
have been kept), as well as initiatives to increase eciency, such as the Danish
innovation of arranging current records according to decimal-based classication
systems (“journalplaner”); one advantage was that this could make large-scale
destruction of records concerning topics without long-term value easier than
chronological ordering, where appraisal would have to be on the item level.
Methods like the ones described here have occasionally been controversial for
archivists that nd them too schematic. On a legal level, the Danish Archival
Act of 1992 emphasizes the destruction of records as a key task for state archives,
more so than in Norway and Sweden, and the level of destruction seems to have
been higher in Denmark (Bloch and Larsen 2006; Bringslid et al. 2009; Edquist
2019; Marthinsen 1983; Paasch 2018).
Digitalization and the complex contemporary archival landscape
From the 1960s onwards, records creation has continued to accelerate in volume
and complexity, not least because of the introduction of digital technologies.
Digital records were introduced in the 1950s and 1960s in major administra-
tive systems and similar centralized functions. Their preservation was discussed
from the beginning but became a paramount issue in the 1990s, when the vast
majority of all new documents became digital.
Adding to the complexity is the reorganization of the public sector, not least
from the 1980s when neoliberal doctrines became prevalent. Many former state
and municipal bodies have been privatized, sometimes leading to disruptions of
the archives and reduced access. New organizational models, temporary projects,
etc. ourish, which also challenges records and archives management.
Since the 1960s and 1970s, new use patterns and new techniques for making
archives accessible have also emerged (e.g., see Chapters 6, 7, and 9 in this vol-
ume). Simultaneously, an opposite development is also visible: Many profession-
als consider themselves as records managers rather than as working in the eld of
culture, mainly managing current information and evidence in fragile and uid
digital media.
In all Scandinavian countr ies, the National Archives have introduced functions
and requirements for the transfer of digital records. Government agencies are
expected to follow certain guidelines for their electronic records, and Norway
has had, since the late 1990s, a national standard for digital records, the NOARK
4, later NOARK 5 (Geijer, Lenberg, and Lövblad 2013, 110–116; Kjellberg and
Hall-Andersen 2017; NOU 2019:9). However, the challenges of long-time pres-
ervation and management of digital archives are still a matter of discussion and
sometimes dispute. Some archivists fear that the care of born-digital archives
tends to be undernanced, and that the “outside world” (those responsible for
government funding, or the top managements of various organizations) gener-
ally underestimates the economic and, even more so, the organizational require-
ments of digital preservation of archives.
38 Samuel Edquist et al.
Beyond the government: Municipal and private archives
Municipal record keeping has tended to be weaker than that of the state, even
though early municipal legislation from the mid-nineteenth century in all coun-
tries included some rules on archiving. Typically, only larger cities and towns
had separate archival institutions. Measures to improve municipal archives were
taken during the twentieth century. Since the 1940s, the Norwegian National
Archivist has been mandated to supervise municipal archives. In Sweden, begin-
ning in the 1930s, the National Archives issued advisory regulations for munic-
ipalities, e.g., on appraisal. In the 1980s, these regulations were formalized with
a special archival council jointly run by the National Archives and the coop-
eration organizations of municipalities and county councils (since 2020 called
“regions”, regioner), and from 1991, municipalities followed the same archival
legislation as the state. Since then, most municipalities have established formal
archival functions with employed archival personnel. In Denmark, municipal
archives were traditionally tended by the National Archives. Since 1992, munic-
ipalities may choose to be liable to the National Archives or establish a local
archival institution. Municipal archives must follow the same archival legislation
as state archives, in terms of, for example, appraisal and accessibility (Edquist
2019; Furdal 1993; Valderhaug 2011).
All countries, especially smaller municipalities, lack sucient resources for
archiving. In Norway, cooperation between municipalities in so-called “IKAs”
(interkommunale arkiv, inter-municipal archives) has been on the rise since the
1970s (Bering 2017). Inter-municipal cooperation is less widespread in Denmark
and Sweden, even though legislation permits it (Furdal 1993). However, the chal-
lenges of digital archiving have forced some smaller municipalities in Sweden to
cooperate.
Municipal archival institutions, especially in larger cities and towns, have
since the 1980s often embraced a more “cultural” approach. In Bergen, the city
archive was given the task of guiding the municipality’s employees and acting as
a repository, but also of promoting the use of the archives and collecting private
material from the municipality. Oslo City Archive soon followed a similar path,
and even some IKAs have developed public programs for active outreach. The
City Archives in Stockholm has pursued many activities with the aim of reaching
a larger audience, e.g., in the project “Stockholm Sources” (Stockholmskällan), a
digitized historical database that is run in collaboration with the City Museum
(Bering 2017; www.stockholmskallan.se).
Private archives have tended to be even less regulated. Larger businesses and
organizations created and kept archives to the extent that they needed them.
There were also some acquisitions of nationally signicant private archives, from
major noble families and the like, by the National Archives.
Separate institutions for private archives emerged from the early twentieth
century. In all three countries, the labor movement established archival insti-
tutions in the early twentieth century. Over time, additional private archival
The histor y of archives in Scandinavia 39
institutions have emerged, such as for business archives, archives for popular move-
ments that are typical for Sweden, and local history archives that are abundant in
Denmark. However, until now, vast amounts of private archives have been kept </